Slashdot Mirror


USMA: Going the Extra Kilometer For Metrication

EagleHasLanded writes "The U.S. Metric Association has been advocating for metrication since 1916 – without much success. In the mid-1970s, the U.S. government passed the Metric Conversion Act, but now it seems the time for complete conversion has come and gone. Or could U.S. educators and health & safety advocates put this issue back on Congress' radar screen?"

45 of 909 comments (clear)

  1. Cut out the intermediary step. by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Funny

    Cut out the intermediary step. Adopt the units of the future world superpower now.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_units_of_measurement

    1. Re:Cut out the intermediary step. by galadran · · Score: 4, Informative
      Incorrect. That article details the traditional Chinese system, not the official one which is metric.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system#Usage_around_the_world

    2. Re:Cut out the intermediary step. by 1u3hr · · Score: 5, Informative

      No. Read the link. China has it's own units.

      Every country has traditional units. China, like Europe, uses metric in almost all engineering, building, legislation. You might buy vegetables in a street market in traditional units, though that's fast fading, but in the supermarket all the packages are marked in litres and grams. The road signs are in km. Your weight is in kgs.Your height in cm.

    3. Re:Cut out the intermediary step. by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's an interesting article, but having been to China, people talk distances between locations in km, and the weights in the market are in grams. China is SI, even if China still officially recognizes ancient measures. Have you, in your Chinese travels, ever seen anything that wasn't measured in SI units?

      Slashdot. The only site where Wikipedia trumps reality (at least the OP posted it tongue in cheek).

    4. Re:Cut out the intermediary step. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Everybody does except for the USA."

      Yes, and I think this is the real point. The U.S. cannot stand almost completely alone in its units of measurement forever.

    5. Re:Cut out the intermediary step. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your height in cm.

      I prefer mm. 1820mm sounds pretty damn impressive.

      Your weight is in kgs.

      I prefer tonnes. 0.105 sounds far less depressing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Cut out the intermediary step. by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US is officially Metric, right? You can't buy anything in a supermarket that's not marked with grams or milliliters.

      Having metric marked as an alternative measurement is not being truly metric. For example, in the UK we used to get milk in pints. For a while after metrication 4 pint jugs were marked additionally as 1.89 Litres. The final step was selling them in 2 Litre containers. It's only then that they were truly selling them in metric units.

      Temperatures in weather reports are given in F only

      It gets worse before it gets better. For a while we had cold weather in C and hot weather in F. As in "The temperature got below zero last night. Not like when we were on holiday and 90 degrees in the shade!"

  2. 0.001km = 0.01hm = 1m = 10dm = 100cm = 1000mm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It just makes sense

    1. Re:0.001km = 0.01hm = 1m = 10dm = 100cm = 1000mm by WWJohnBrowningDo · · Score: 4, Informative
      wikipedia:

      Although a number of variants of the metric system emerged in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the term is now often used as a synonym for "SI" or the "International System of Units" - the official system of measurement in almost every country in the world.

      Merriam Webster:

      A decimal system of weights and measures based on the meter and on the kilogram

    2. Re:0.001km = 0.01hm = 1m = 10dm = 100cm = 1000mm by RabidReindeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A decimal system of weights and measures based on the meter and on the kilogram

      kg are not a unit of weight. Newton is the unit of weight in SI.

      You don't even use the correct SI units. Again Metric is not SI.

      Darned if I'm going to let you out-pedant me. Just because a system of weights and measures is based on the meter and kilogram doesn't actually say the the kilogram itself is the measure of weight, just the basis for the measure of weight. So there!

    3. Re:0.001km = 0.01hm = 1m = 10dm = 100cm = 1000mm by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Furthermore, kilogram is most often used for weight

      No, the kilogram is used for mass. It is often frequently incorrectly claimed to be a weight by people who don't know any better. This works only because at the moment all but a tiny handful of humans are currently limited to an environment where the gravitational field is the same magnitude. If that ever changes people will end up having to learn the difference.

    4. Re:0.001km = 0.01hm = 1m = 10dm = 100cm = 1000mm by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 4, Informative

      1 mm is roughly 1/32 Inches - so right off the bat there you've got have the accuracy that you asked for.

      Furthermore, it is possible to have decimal millimetres, whilst most construction units are given in mm (eg, a kitchen cabinet is generally 600mm wide, light switches are usually 1500mm above the floor) if you need more accuracy (and you generally don't in construction) then you can specify additional accuracy using decimal places... That's the whole point of the metric system, that using decimal places becomes easy. 1 metre = 100 cm, 10 cm = 0.1 m = 100 mm etc...

      If you need to put something in the middle of two points that are, say, 105 mm apart, it's pretty straightforward to specify that the distance is 52.5 mm
      Rulers will often have 0.5 mm markings (again, roughly, 1/64 inch) for the first 50 or 100 mm. If your measure doesn't have half mm markings, it's usually accurate enough to interpolate by eye and put the mark on your materials half-way between two mm marks on the measurement device.

    5. Re:0.001km = 0.01hm = 1m = 10dm = 100cm = 1000mm by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with base 10 as it is now used is that you get forced to an impractical scale right when you most need it.

      That's daft.

      Firstly, a 2400mm board is much more easily divisible than a 37 1/32 inch board.

      Secondly conversions in imperial are just plain awful.

      e.g.

      10mm of rain falls over a 1km^2 drainage area. How much volume does the drainage system have to dispose of?

      Now do it for imperial with inches of rain and acres of area. Oh, and did you choose gallons or cu ft?

      Now convert to mass. OK, so you need to look up a conversion table. But you might have to change your volumetric measure, since imperial has plenty of totally different ones.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  3. The US likes being different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pissing the rest of the world off is just a bonus.

    1. Re:The US likes being different by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Chinese engineers can't figure out imperial? Cool story bro.

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
  4. You have to have the right selling point... by ClaraBow · · Score: 5, Funny

    All you have to do is convince the male congressional leaders that they will gain manhood size once we convert over to metric! 15 is a whole lot bigger than 6 :)

    1. Re:You have to have the right selling point... by slashgordo. · · Score: 5, Funny

      If Jesus were using the metric system while riding a dinosaur, we might could convince the US congressional leaders to switch to metric.

  5. Boggle by Tim+Ward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are the Colonies really still using Imperial units? - thought they must have stopped doing that yonks ago, after losing all those space probes to erroneous conversions between foot-slug-poundals and furlongs-per-fortnight.

    Or is it like their refusal to use global standard paper sizes, or basically follow any other international standards - if it was invented in Europe it must de facto be Communist and therefore can't be touched with a barge pole?

    1. Re:Boggle by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are the Colonies really still using Imperial units?

      No.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:Boggle by Tim+Ward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Good point.

      I come across this when calculating how much fuel to put in an aeroplane - the bowser dispenses litres, I need to know what that is in pounds for the weight and balance calculation, and the fuel burn (and thus how much fuel I need) is specified in the POH in gallons per hour ... ... but these are indeed American gallons, not Imperial ones, and getting that sort of thing wrong can kill people.

    3. Re:Boggle by 1u3hr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      2- You can shove your commie paper sizes up your "arse".

      Fucking "Letter" page size default in every fucking installation of MS fucking Office I've used in the last 20 fucking years, and I've never even seen a piece of Letter size fucking paper.

    4. Re:Boggle by xs650 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, we here in the Colonies aren't using the Imperial system. The Imperial system was standardized in the early 19th century. We aren't that up to date. We use a variation of the British system that preceded the Imperial system. For instance, the Imperial system uses a gallon that was defined in 1824, while the US gallon is the Queen Anne's Wine Gallon of 1707.

    5. Re:Boggle by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Decimal units were actually put into practice first in the US, thanks to Thomas Jefferson who was an ardent proponent of the idea.

      He was successful in giving the US had the first decimal currency in the world, and later proposed decimalization of the units of measure.

      "to reduce every branch to the same decimal ratio already established for the coin, and thus bring the calculation of the principal affairs of life within the arithmetic of every man who can multiply and divide plain numbers." -Thomas Jefferson

      The French picked up the idea when Franklin and Jefferson promoted the idea while in France as ambassadors.

      The problem was (like in many things) Congress didn't cotton to a good idea and failed to adopt it when Jefferson proposed it after the adoption of the Constitution.

      Jefferson actually advocated the measures be based on the motion of a pendulum at 38 degrees, something that predated the definition of units in the metric system in physical units by almost 200 years.

    6. Re:Boggle by arth1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      2- You can shove your commie paper sizes up your "arse".

      Yes, far more easily. See, when I cut or fold my A4, I get an A5. And I cut or fold that again, and get A6. Then A7. All the same shape, with no bits and pieces leftover to be cut off. So I end up with 16 nice wipes of A8 and no shit on my hands.

    7. Re:Boggle by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Funny

      Good point.

      I come across this when calculating how much fuel to put in an aeroplane - the bowser dispenses litres, I need to know what that is in pounds for the weight and balance calculation, and the fuel burn (and thus how much fuel I need) is specified in the POH in gallons per hour ... ... but these are indeed American gallons, not Imperial ones, and getting that sort of thing wrong can kill people.

      Well that makes my example of a quiche baked from an English cookbook turning out kind of dry seem rather trivial in comparison.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    8. Re:Boggle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's OK, I don't think I've ever seen an A4 sheet of paper. In fact, I can't even tell you its dimensions. I know a piece of Letter paper, which is what I would use to write a letter (if such things still exist), is 8.5"x11". Maybe it's not nice round numbers, but it's 2 significant figures (like all ANSI paper sizes), easy to remember, and can be measured with any ruler.

      The ISO paper sizes, OTOH, are completely irrational. And I say that because they're based on the square root of 2, which unfortunately is not a rational number. So you end up with an A4 size of 210mmx297mm. Of course if I don't remember that, I can always just calculate it if I remember the formula: An A0 sheet of paper is a square meter with a 1:1.414 aspect ratio, so its dimensions are the 4th root of 2 by the 4th root of 2 divided by the square root of 2 (2^(1/4) x 2^(1/4)/2^(1/5)). I don't need a calculator to tell you that's 1.189mx0.x841m. Then you just fold it in half 4 times and round down, so you get 2^(1/4) / 4 * 1000 = 297mm by 2^(1/4) / 2^(1/2) / 4 * 1000 = 210mm. See? Easy as pi!

      dom

  6. gradual transition; average people by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ths slashdot summary doesn't seem to be based closely on the linked articles:

    but now it seems the time for complete conversion has come and gone.

    The linked articles don't discuss a "cold turkey" government-mandated switch to metric (which was never a realistic possibility given the nature of American culture and politics). They discuss incremental government-mandated measures. Some of these measures have already been carried out: requiring food labeling to be in both US and metric. Some have been stalled legislatively: eliminating the US units from food labeling.

    It would be great if we could get road signs to be switched over to dual units. E.g., congress could pass a law saying that on the interstate system, any time an old sign is replaced with a new one, it has to have dual units.

    These incremental measures would be incredibly easy, and would require no new taxes or increase in government regulation (just changes to existing regulations). That's why it's so pathetic that the pace of implementing these measures has been so slow.

    I teach physics at a community college. My students are a bell curve, extending from folks who are very bright and will transfer to elite four-year schools, all the way down to people who really shouldn't be in college. The bottom half of this bell curve is probably pretty representative of the population of the US.

    Some characteristics of people in this range: (1) They tend not to understand at the conceptual level what the operations of multiplication and division are about. (2) They tend not to have any habit of checking whether their answers make sense in order of magnitude. (3) When they learn some new mathematical concept, they memorize it as a rote procedure, and therefore when they don't use it for a month, they forget it completely.

    My students are mostly science majors, so they end up developing some facility with the metric system, but it's an uphill climb. For most people, what happens is that they learn the metric system in grade school, and then they never use it in everyday life, so they forget it completely and utterly.

  7. Re:What's the point? by Idarubicin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After all, Imperial (in the US flavor) is better for computing than metric since it's at least partially base 2.

    Which would, potentially, be helpful and useful if the humans who program, enter data into, and use information from, those computers were also in the habit of working in base 2.

    And I'm sorry, as long as there are 5280 feet in a mile - that's 2^5 * 3 * 5 * 11(!?) - I'm going to call bullshit on the computing usefulness of a "partially" base 2 system.

    --
    ~Idarubicin
  8. stupid observation... by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I had to equip my shop, and among other things picked up a set of socket wrenches, in both SAE and metric sizes. One thing I noticed, though, was that the socket drives were all in English measurements (1/4", 3/8", 1/2", 3/4") and that there were no metric-drive sets around anywhere. Just curious, are there any metric drive standards in Europe, and why haven't they found their way to the US? I'd expect at least some metric size sets from China to sneak in...

    1. Re:stupid observation... by loshwomp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Note to mods: He's talking about the square socket drive (from, e.g. the ratchet handle), not the size of the socket wrenches themselves.

      Just curious, are there any metric drive standards in Europe, and why haven't they found their way to the US?

      They're already here because they are the same. They are 6.35mm (1/4"), 9.5mm (3/8"), and 12.7mm (1/2").

      There would be absolutely no upside to fragmentation in this standard (the only point of which is interchangeability). If you think the point of the metric system is to have everything in some integer measurement, then you're converting for the wrong reason.

  9. Re:What's the point? by mspohr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We do make buildings using feet and inches which is a nightmare.
    Suppose you need to put a 2 feet 8 3/8 inch window in the middle of a 4 foot 7 3/16 inch wide wall.
    How far from the left edge of the wall is the left edge of the window?
    (I'll leave the math to you.)

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  10. U.S Military mostly metric by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The U.S. Military is almost completely metric. They made a great leap when they switched 5 gallon water cans to 20 liters, which were one of the big hold outs. Still weighing aircraft fuel in pounds, and speed limits are miles per hour, but they are moving forwards. At least we only need one tool set now.

  11. Re:That's nearly one hectoyear! by Calydor · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oh, I'm sure no problems are caused by this at all.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  12. Re:US Metrication by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    perhaps the people have spoken...many times...

    Yes, and their voice was "Ooh, change makes my head hurt. Leave me alone and give me tax cuts and reality TV".

    The last days of the empire, indeed.

  13. Re:Gasoline prices in liters at the pumps by Sique · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a myth. The only places where some 1 DM = 1 € conversions were attempted were bars and pubs.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  14. Re:That's nearly one hectoyear! by Teun · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Nobody cares if you drive 65 mph or the corresponding 105 kmh.

    But it does matter for manufacturers building equipment for markets using the different units.
    It should require no explanation conversions between mm, cm, m and km is easier to explain and comprehend than the conversions between 64th, inch, foot, yard and mile.

    Alone the need for different tool sets is in my company a serious cost and especially a quality control issue.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  15. Re:Leave the units alone by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What exactly is gained by change in units? As a metric "native" I can tell you that metric units are not based on real-world criteria. There is no way to naturally define an "approximate" centimeter or a gram (as opposed to approximate inch, foot or ounce, for example).

    Which is plainly wrong. Every unit was defined to be connected to the Meter (which is why it is called "meter", latin for "measure"). The metric ton for instance was defined as the mass of water in a cube of 1m x 1m x 1m. Thus 1 liter (1 dm) of water weighs weighs 1 kg, and 1 cm of water weighs 1 g. The meter was defined as the 10 millionth of the distance between Northpole and Equator. Only when the first units of Meter bars were founded and handed over to the national measuring bodies, one found out that there was a small mistake in measurement, and the new meter was about 2 millimeters short. But then it was too late to change that, and the meter was kept.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  16. Re:Long Live Roman measurements by Sperbels · · Score: 5, Insightful

    though even that holds its own against the M3

    Drag racing hardly qualifies as holding its own. Real race cars have to turn sometimes.

  17. Re:Long Live Roman measurements by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    I did a little fact checking before posting

    Sacrilege.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  18. Re:US Metrication by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That, or they said that there is little benefit for the man in the street to convert and there are giant costs involved. So, with little benefit in one hand and a giant cost in the other, what would you do?

    You consider the future. Who was it who said "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish"?

    The fall from enterprising pioneers to decadent reactionaries went quickly - a mere two generations.

  19. Americans who don't understand A4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Please read this, it explains it clearly:

    http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html

  20. Re:Long Live Roman measurements by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Funny

    Alright, but apart from better sanitation, medicine, education, irrigation, public health, roads, a freshwater system, public order and an automobile suspension... what have the Romans done for us?

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  21. Re:That's nearly one hectoyear! by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why should the US convert? Here's why: graph.

    --
    for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
  22. Re:Long Live Roman measurements by Ironhandx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact it can hold its own against an M3 in any measurement is impressive. The M3 costs OVER DOUBLE what the Mustang GT costs. Even in the UK it costs over 75% more than the cost of buying a mustang and having it shipped in. Then with a few k in bolt-ons you have a Mustang thats going to smoke the M3 in most any real-world situation on the street.

    Neither is a race car, but both are good cars. In their own right.

    I hate europeans that don't understand the point of a Mustang... it goes fast. It goes fast cheaply. It makes a lovely sound and looks amazing for the price of a base model family sedan. It can be made to go faster than anyone could ever possibly need for under 10k USD.

    If we're going to compare Mustang to M3 lets put the GT500 onto a track against it. I'll bet dollars to donuts that the extra horsepower on the GT500 makes up most of the time difference. Because thats what the M3 is. Its in the GT500 price range, and it only MIGHT beat the GT500 around a track(its a might because it will depend on which track, one with a lot of straights the M3 is a bit screwed, and vice-versa for the GT500), even with the SRA, because the GT500 outdoes it on both horsepower and horsepower to weight by a lot.

    That said, the 1/4 mile is often considered the ultimate test of a car, and I'll mention about the first fucking thing they do on Top Gear UK with very nearly every-single-car they bring on there. If they do a comparison test its always either 1/4 mile, standing mile, or 0-100 and back to 0, which are all essentially the same thing.

    The 1/4 mile is the easiest and fastest way to say "My car beats the pulp out of your car".

    Besides that, for the same reason as James May on Top Gear says the Fiat Panda is fun, the Mustang is fun. Cars are most fun when they're driven at the edge of their capabilities. Its due to this that the Mustang with its SRA is more fun than any of the BMW's I've test-driven. The Mustang can be fun on a daily basis, relatively within the legal local speed limits. The M3 is about as boring as it gets until you can get it onto a track somewhere.

  23. Re:powers of ten - or powers of randon numbers? by WegianWarrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To quote the AC that got modded down: "How exactly are inch and the foot are more practical units for everyday use? cm and meter are used all around the world everyday and there's no problems with them."

    Centimetres and metres are extremely practical for everyday use, as proven by the fact that most of the world use them without trouble on a day to day basis. And before you come up with the old and busted idea that you can't easily divide by three in the metric system - or at least not get a nice, round number - try telling me just how many inches a fifth of a foot is.. or a fifth of a yard.

    Metrics are easier to explain, lets you convert between units easier and makes for simpler maths. The so called Standard measures do not.

    --
    Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.